Update. To access Radio iPlayer you just need to register, no password needed. I can't comment on TV iPlayer because I don't watch TV.

Bear in mind Radio iPlayer can still be freely accessed by those legally licence free. The radio licence was abolished in February 1971 and no licence needed to listen to radio broadcasts whatever the source.

PCs, laptops, routers and other digital devices including smartphones cannot be "examined and tested" by a TV licensing operative. Firstly examining and testing e.g a laptop requires authorisation under Section 49 RIPA 2000 which Capita Business Services will never obtain. Secondly, data processing equipment such as PCs and laptops fall outside the ambit of the 2003 Communications Act. Any TV Licensing operative attempting to access files on a personal computer, laptop or smartphone can be charged under Section 1 of the Misuse of Computers 1990 as they will causing a computer to perform an unauthorised act.

Currently if accessing iPlayer you have to click on the declaration "I have a TV licence" to access the service but very shortly you will need a password. However the situation seems to be different for Radio Iplayer which is a separate service. Currently no declaration is demanded to access the radio service as no licence is needed - the Radio Licence was abolished in February 1971. I suspect the present situation will still prevail after the TV service becomes passworded. No licence is needed to listen to any radio service, BBC, commercial or amateur.

I'd like "vulnerable" defined. I had a recent stroke with aphasia - not just impaired speech, aphasia involves problems with language and the comprehension of others' speech. In fact I cannot use the telephone. Needless to say I'm living on benefits. At the moment I'm not being pressed by debt collectors, I have two debts that are on debt management programmes and I'm paying a monthly direct debit that I can afford without putting myself on the breadline.

Hi folks, Thanks for replies. My physiology hasn't been affected - in fact I swim for at least an hour most days and I've also been cleared to swim outdoors - I'm actually cold-acclimatised to be able swim unprotected in winter-cold water, part of my rehabilation. No - there's no way I could be granted DLA. The aftermath of my stroke are bouts of depression, fatigue, the inability to follow a conversation and very short attention span. I'm also very absentminded and have a very short fuse - possibly because I can't communicate properly. Unfortunately our telephone-obsessed culture causes problems for someone like myself whose hearing has been affected by the way the brain processes sound.

Hi All Firstly, please forgive any mistakes in my posts - my grammar went out of the window after my stroke. My situation: suffered full stroke in mid-Nov and hospitalised for eight days. No damage to physiology but the stroke damaged the part of my brain responsible for communication. I was left with no speech and impaired hearing and vision. My speech has progressed to junior school level and my vision has improved considerably. Although I can once again listen to music and listen to the radio, the poor audio quality of telephones mean that I have great difficulty in using the telephone. In fact it has been proved that my ears are working perfectly and my problem is down to a neurological deficit - in other words brain damage. I'm being referred to hospital to have my hearing assessed. My problem concerns Pension Credit. I'm receiving long-term Incapacity Benefit (on the old rules) after a heart attack 10 years ago, and of course my recent stroke. When I was discharged from hospital Social Services were supposed to help me deal with my benefits - I live alone with no nearby family. Needless to say I received no help and in fact I had to make my claim for Benefit Credit - fortunately my intellect was mostly unaffected by the stroke. Now the problem: the DWP are demanding proof of my birth. I tried to call the call centre, an unpleasant exchange as both parties became exasperated, meanwhile I was humliated by a snide remark "you should be able to manage your finances". The clerk obviously had no knowledge of strokes and their effects on survivors. I'm at loss to as to why they now want proof of my birth 61 years after the event? They are paying my Incapacity Benefit and have done for several years. They know when and where I was born, they issued me a National Insurance number when I started work, and no doubt they could tell me my inside leg measurement. My birth certificate has disappered over several moves. I supplied my expired passport which of course has my birth of date etc. but that is not sufficient. Now they demand a "certificated" birth certificate, something I've never come across. My health has been compromised by the DWP's transigance. I cannot speak fluently and my speech fails completely if under stress. My vision has been impaired by my stroke and now glasses - I didn't need them beforehand. Until I receive an NHS voucher I cannot to pay for glasses. Likewise although over 60 and on Incapacity Benefit I am not entitled free dental treatment. Can anybody help?

I am fully aware of that and yes, he did. Incorrect. Whether or not that is so at a post office I do not know because I never tax my machine that way. According to the DVLA website you can do neither online until you have the new V5 in your possession as both document number and registration mark are required. As far as taxing the bike was concerned the post office option was anyway unavailable as I didn't have (and still don't yet have) a paper certificate of insurance. Of course when taxing online the DVLA system checked the MID which confirmed that my insurance was in force. Perhaps I should remind you that the SORN system was intended to track down down and prevent the use of untaxed (and often uninsured) vehicles. Instead like so many sensible laws, the DVLA have perverted the SORN regulation into an excuse to raise extra profits. Remember - although notionally a Government department DVLA is in reality a profit-driven quasi-corporate entity. In the unlikely event some common sense still reigns at DVLA, it is obvious that the DVLA know roughly when I would receive my V5, their own records will show the date of issue my MOT certificate, and of course the MID will confirm the date my insurance commenced. They will also know that so near to the end of a month any reasonable person will wait until the beginning of the next month to buy their tax as no-one is going to waste money by losing nearly a month's tax. It should be perfectly obvious that I never had any intention to use the bike without tax or otherwise illegally, otherwise why would have I gone to the trouble and expense of insurance and MOT? Back in the sensible era of my youth there was always the concept of "adhering to the spirit rather than the letter of the law" and the DVLA extended periods of grace (used to be 14 days) to cover such eventualities of transferring a vehicle to a new owner who meanwhile has to arrange insurance etc.

Hi all, Quick precis. After the theft of my previous motorcycle I was lucky to find a suitable replacement secondhand from a guy in Liverpool. The description of the bike was spot on and I am happy with my purchase. Only problem was, the bike had been off the road for two years and the owner wasn't sure if the SORN was till current. After the sale was completed he sent off the V5 and subsequently I received the new V5 in my name. The V5 was issued on 17-2-11. I received the V5 on Mon 21st and arranged insurance on Wed 23rd. Meanwhile the bike was booked in for MOT on Fri 25th and passed. Now that I was the registered owner and both MOT and insurance were on the relative databases I logged on to the DVLA website in order to tax the bike. Big problem: I found out that the SORN had run out at the beginning of February - something I could not have found out until I had the V5 in my posession and was ready to tax. Not only that when I attempted to tax the bike on Sat 27th the DVLA system would only let me tax from the bginning of Feb, meaning that I would lose a month of a 12-month tax disc costing £50. I decided to tax on Mar 1st but was unexpectedly away for two days. Accordingly I taxed the bike for 12 months today, 2nd March at a cost of £50. During the process I was presented with this warning: "There has been a gap in the licensing of this vehicle. Previous tax disc or SORN expired on: 01 02 2011 It is an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle that is licensed and does not have a SORN declared. You can apply for a tax disc from today's date, with a licence start date of the 1st of this month. However please note the above offence will still apply. DVLA's Continuous Registration Enforcement Centre may be in contact with the registered keeper regarding this gap in licensing." Surely they cannot impose a penalty on the grounds that I was unaware of the SORN status until I actually attempted to apply for a licence, and from that time I took care to rapidly complete the process leading to the issue of a valid licence? The bike was collected by trailer and the only time it was taken on the road unlicensed was when collected from the MOT station which is of course fully legal. I'm living on a small fixed income and can't afford to hand DVLA £80, about 80% of my weekly income.

If it's so easy to track internet usage how come law enforcement have such a job to track down pervs downloading and distributing porn? If specialist Police units have such a problem I doubt very much that TV Licensing will have much success over something so trivial as TV "entertainment". How are they going to trace TV viewing on mobiles? It's not necessary to register a pay-as-you-go mobile which can be topped-up via vouchers bought anonymously for cash. Pretty moot in my case because the reason I don't have a TV nor licence is because I can't abide the rubbish, so I'm very unlikely to want to watch it on a tiny mobile device screen. As for my internet account, I have several usernames that should confuse them somewhat - was I using it at the time or somebody else? And how about homes with unsecured or Openreach wi-fi?

It is immaterial whether the device is capable of receiving a signal or not. The licensable activity is using for the reception of broadcast TV signals as they are being transmitted. You do not need a licence to own a television. Nor do you need a licence to use it for watching DVDs, pre-recorded videotapes or as a games console display. There is no requirement for the TV's tuner to be disabled, and anyway those sets without scart sockets will need to be able to receive Ch36 which is the channel reserved for RF links from older video cassette recorders, some games consoles and vintage computers.

You could watch foreign TV via satellite without a licence until fairly recently but that concession was closed. Student TVs (fixed and portable) used to be covered by their parents' home licence but again the "£" sign lit up the Government/BBC eyes. Bang goes another concession.

Absolutely true - Capita have admitted so. That's the whole idea. They prey on those who can't stand up for their rights. By far the biggest part of Capita's prosecutions are single mothers. They also target what they perceive to be "poor" neighbourhoods and leave middle class areas alone.

And what would happen in my case when I'm with an ISP who use dynamic IP addresses? Never the same one twice. Anyway never heard of proxy servers? I don't pay the TV Tax because I don't have a TV. I put a stop to TVL's harassment by withdrawing their implied right of access (WoIRA) to exclude their salesmen, and threatened legal action for harassment if they didn't stop sending me their nastygrams.

Credit where credit is due!! Santander sent a nice letter in reply to my complaint and apologised over the fee which was added in error. The full amount will be refunded. Well done, Santander.